| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
| | | | |
| | ''Dune'' comes to mind... [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.71|199.27.128.71]] 07:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC) | | ''Dune'' comes to mind... [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.71|199.27.128.71]] 07:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC) |
| − |
| |
| − | Interesting that Randall omitted Shakespeare from the list of people allowed to make up words. Shakespeare used 17,677 different words in all of his known works. About 10% of those words are words that he made up and are now technically official English (includes changing parts of speech for existing words)[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.100|108.162.216.100]] 21:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :I believe that Shakespeare didn't invent 1700 words, although they were at one point attributed to him as earliest known use - especially in the days when searches for early examples were done by hand. Today in many cases earlier examples have since been found. IO9 has an article about it http://io9.gizmodo.com/no-william-shakespeare-did-not-really-invent-1-700-eng-1700049586
| |
| − | :There is also the fact that while some of his plays are the earliest (surviving) example of a word, most of those words must have been known to the public. I can't imagine people going to a performance where they don't recognise a tenth of the words. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.23|141.101.98.23]] 01:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :What's the problem?
| |
| − | :If you can make up a story you should be able to make up words. A much worse problem is when an author thinks describing scenery is part of the story. And when women stop in mid paragraph to describe clothing... Feck that!
| |
| − | :Making up a word or two to get around shit like that is OK. It is only hand-waving a ghost out from the machine. Asimov was terrible for that crap in his early work. He grew out of it, in a manner of speaking, recognising there was a time and place.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | there are many exceptions to this rule... Jhereg, for example.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.51.116|173.245.51.116]] 10:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I'm surprised that {{w|A Clockwork Orange}} by Anthony Burgess hasn't been mentioned. It is regularly featured in 'Top 100 Books' lists, but features its own language, Nadsat. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 11:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I think a lot of comments here are based on missunderstanding. The CHANCE that the book is good is lower. It doesn't mean "more made up words" -> "worse book". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.228.41|108.162.228.41]] 21:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | What about Animorphs? There are quite a few made-up words there, and Randall is a fan of Animorphs. Why is Animorphs not mentioned in the title text?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.250|141.101.98.250]] 16:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Well, writing from Italy here... Dante's Divina Commedia is largely acknowledged as containing tons of made-up words and then-weird sentences that are now common sayings in Italian. And we're talking about one of the world's greatest literature masterpieces ever :) does that count as an exception?
| |
